2014 NBA Draft

NYCelt wrote:It's NFL draft day!

...just sayin', for the record.

And once it starts and hour later they will have selected 4 players..............and like watching the rest of the snow melt by the house took days too.

give um 5 minutes (like the NBA) and get the thing moving
beat

beat wrote:

NYCelt wrote:It's NFL draft day!

...just sayin', for the record.

And once it starts and hour later they will have selected 4 players..............and like watching the rest of the snow melt by the house took days too.

give um 5 minutes (like the NBA) and get the thing moving
beat

Maybe so, but every year it's my day to hope The Bills will make that one cornerstone pick.

I tune in religiously around the time they should be on the clock...they make their pick...

..and my hopes are dashed.

Sick, but it's a tradition.

NYCelt wrote:

beat wrote:

NYCelt wrote:It's NFL draft day!

...just sayin', for the record.

And once it starts and hour later they will have selected 4 players..............and like watching the rest of the snow melt by the house took days too.

give um 5 minutes (like the NBA) and get the thing moving
beat

Maybe so, but every year it's my day to hope The Bills will make that one cornerstone pick.

I tune in religiously around the time they should be on the clock...they make their pick...

..and my hopes are dashed.

Sick, but it's a tradition.

NYCelt,

You are familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity, right?


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein


Apparently Ol' Al wasn't a Cubs fan.


bob


.

Bob,

Actually, you just gave creedence to my wife's theory that I am quite insane.

You've given me something new to consider.

Write me when they put me away, won't you?

Regards

After those ping pong balls find their team a whole new round of speculation will begin.  Knowing where the Celtics will be slotted will at least eliminate or include more options for the team.

Worst case scenario is the 8th pick.  

Some observations from the combine and other media outlets as well as posts from board members.

The flavor of the month appears to be Exum (with the top 3 not showing up)  He says he is a PG.  However his skills may translate better to a combo guard.  If Noah is there I am taking him.  We can pick up a guard or SF or another PF at 17 so I am going with the best available big after Embiid.

The Celtics need better interior defense and Vonleh has  the length and some mass to help in that area.  He is going to fill out in 2 years and will be a very good player at both ends.

I cannot see Boston taking a PG that early in the draft because there will be good value at 17 if they need to go in that direction.

Even if Boston drafts Vonleh they will still be in the market for a center.  They will either luck up with getting Embiid or go the free agent or trade route.  

Chris Humphries will not be on the team next year.  His $12 million expiring contract is needed for Boston to resign Bradley and go after a center through free agency.  

My wish list is that Boston comes out of the draft with a big and a scorer.

One kid that has caught my eye is the guard out of Michigan, Nik Stauskas.  concern would be over his body fat but he has handle, can shoot and has some pretty nice hops.

Julius Randle should be drafted by Boston if we are at 4 and the big 3 are off the board.  His wingspan was 7 FT,  he can post up, rebound and handle the ball.  And he has an NBA ready body right now.

If Boston is looking to draft a PG, Elfrid Payton should be there around 17.  The Celtics will need to draft a PG sooner or later as an understudy to RR.

Another interesting prospect is the guard out of UCLA, Levine.

dboss

dboss,

Is it great minds or sick minds that think alike?  I just described Exum as the flavor of the month in another thread, then saw that you used the same tag.

I get the feeling you're right about Humphries.  He's a decent forward, but not at the price it would take.  We've already got a glut at his position anyway.

As for taking Randle, I would do that only if we were thinking of packaging Sully and Kelly.  I think Randle will be the better of the three and Sully and Kelly might help bring us something in a multi-player deal.  I'd go in another direction if we intended to keep those two, however.

Regards

Here's supposedly the first post-lottery mock draft.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/2014-nba-mock-draft--lottery-edition-021401275.html

The comments Mark Spears makes about the two picks he is predicting we'll take are less than thrilling: Vonleh @ #6 - "...he is not a great athlete." And TJ Warren @ #17 - "...is not a high-level athlete."

Wow, that should get the heart racing and the blood pumping with excitement about those two...

Can't believe he expects Julius Randle to slip all the way to 11. That ain't happenin'. Anyway, here is his mock draft in case the link doesn't work.


The Cleveland Cavaliers' lottery luck continued into 2014 as they won the No. 1 pick Tuesday for the third time in four years, despite having 1.7 percent odds.

The Cavaliers could try to trade the pick to acquire a proven player. Or, they could keep it and make the safe pick by taking Duke forward Jabari Parker, who could help them make the playoffs for the first time since LeBron James' departure.

Kansas center Joel Embiid's back issues are a concern and Kansas guard Andrew Wiggins probably will need time to develop. Cleveland All-Star guard Kyrie Irving also probably wouldn't mind a fellow Duke player joining him.

Here's Yahoo Sports' first 2014 mock draft following the draft lottery.

Cleveland 1. Cleveland Cavaliers: Jabari Parker, Duke, SF, 6-8, 241 pounds, Fr. Scout's take: "He is ready to play right now. Assuming he does not have weight issues, he is a long-time starter and possibly an All-Star."

Milwaukee 2. Milwaukee Bucks: Andrew Wiggins, Kansas, SG-SF, 6-8, 197, Fr. Scout's take: "He became more assertive, aggressive and confident as his freshman season went on. Has amazing athleticism and a huge upside."

Philadelphia 3. Philadelphia 76ers: Joel Embiid, Kansas, C, 7-0, 240, Fr. Scout's take: "Embiid is a game-changer, but [his] back is a concern. Improved in a short time. Has star and franchise player potential."

Orlando 4. Orlando Magic: Dante Exum, Australian Institute of Sports, PG-SG, 6-6, 196. Scout's take: "Long and athletic. In many ways he's a mystery. A lot of teams went to Australia and were just able to watch him practice."

Utah 5. Utah Jazz: Aaron Gordon, Arizona, PF, 6-9, 220, Fr. Scout's Take: "Plays to win. Played for Arizona, not for Gordon. Tremendous passer for a guy his size. Unique ball-handler and rebounds well."

Boston 6. Boston Celtics: Noah Vonleh, Indiana, PF-C, 6-9, 247, Fr. Scout's take: "He's young [18 years old] and he has huge hands. He has a big body and he can shoot from outside, but he is not a great athlete."

Los Angeles 7. Los Angeles Lakers: Marcus Smart, Oklahoma State, PG, 6-3, 227, So. Scout's take: "He had a lot of distractive factors this past season. He has such a strong track record that his [incident with the fan] is viewed as an anomaly."

Sacramento 8. Sacramento Kings: Tyler Ennis, Syracuse, PG, 6-2, 182, Fr. Scout's take: "Knows how to run a team. Made big plays in big moments last season. A pass-first point guard who thinks like a coach."

Charlotte 9. Charlotte Hornets (from Detroit): Doug McDermott, Creighton, SF, 6-8, 218, Sr. Scout's Take: "The son of a coach is going to find a way to score. He might not have a position, but he is a smart team defender."

Philadelphia 10. Philadelphia 76ers (from New Orleans): James Young, Kentucky, SG, 6-7, 213, Fr. Scout's take: "No right hand. Owns a sweet stroke from NBA range that is beautiful, effortless and easy. Needs to learn how to come off screens."

Denver 11. Denver Nuggets: Julius Randle, Kentucky, PF, 6-9, 250, Fr. Scout's take: "If he were to slide, it would be because he's a high turnover guy who is not the most skilled. He got by in college by bullying for points."

Orlando 12. Orlando Magic: Dario Saric, Croatia Cibona Zagreb, SF-PF, 6-10, 223. Scout's take: "Incredible passer for his position. You can run an offense through him. A high-level point forward. Unproven perimeter shooter."

Minnesota 13. Minnesota Timberwolves: Jusuf Nurkic, Croatia Cedevita Zagreb, C, 6-11, 280. Scout's take: "He's like a DeMarcus Cousins type in size and offensive game. He plays more athletic and swift than you would expect for a guy 280."

Phoenix 14. Phoenix Suns: Nik Stauskas, Michigan, SG, 6-6, 207, So. Scout's take: "He's a proven lights-out shooter who can play well on pick-and-rolls. Elite ball-handler. Worst-case scenario he's a great shooter."

Atlanta 15. Atlanta Hawks: Adreian Payne, Michigan State, PF, 6-10, 239, Sr. Scout's take: "He is a stretch-four potential player who rebounds and shoots the ball well. He has great size for his position, but is a bit injury-prone."

Chicago 16. Chicago Bulls (from Charlotte): Gary Harris, Michigan State, SG, 6-4, 205, So. Scout's take: "Small for a shooting guard. But he is a unique shooter who can also defend. He played hurt all of last season."

Boston 17. Boston Celtics (from Brooklyn): T.J. Warren, North Carolina State, SF, 6-8, 220, So. Scout's take: "He's a lethal scorer, especially from midrange in. He has a great floater. An unproven defender who is not a high-level athlete."

Phoenix 18. Phoenix Suns (from Washington): Zach LaVine, UCLA, SG, 6-6, 181, Fr. Scout's take: "High-risk or high-reward draft pick due to his immaturity. Most explosive guard UCLA has had since the Thunder's Russell Westbrook."

Chicago 19. Chicago Bulls: Kristaps Porzingas, Spain Sevilla PF-C, 7-0, 220. Scout's take: "Face-up power forward who is two or three years away. Good 3-point shooter, shot-blocker. Big body that is extremely underdeveloped."

Toronto 20. Toronto Raptors: Clint Capela, France Chalone, PF, 6-11, 222. Scout's take: "He's a pogo-stick jumper who is extremely athletic. He shows some good shot-blocking and rebounding potential. Needs to put on weight."

Oklahoma City 21. Oklahoma City Thunder (from Dallas via Houston and Los Angeles Lakers): Rodney Hood, Duke, SG-SF, 6-8, 208, So. Scout's take: "True big guard who can guard multiple positions. Made great strides after his redshirt year. Big concern is ability to keep weight on."

Memphis 22. Memphis Grizzlies: K.J. McDaniels, Clemson, SF, 6-6, 196, Jr. Scout's take: "Athletic wing with high-level defensive potential. Premier shot-blocker from the wing spot. Decent shooter with developing offensive game."

Utah 23. Utah Jazz (from Golden State): Kyle Anderson, UCLA, SF, 6-8, 220, So. Scout's take: "He's unique Boris Diaw-type of guy who's a mismatch offensively. Sees the floor very well. Question marks are defense, slow feet."

Charlotte 24. Charlotte Hornets (from Portland): Elfrid Payton, Louisiana-Lafayette, PG, 6-4, 185, Jr. Scout's take: "Defensive-minded player with Rajon Rondo-type game. His outside shot is a big weakness. He is extremely fast running the floor."

Houston 25. Houston Rockets: Jordan Adams, UCLA, SG, 6-5, 209, So. Scout's take: "Crafty shooting guard who is a great offensive player. Has intriguing defensive potential. Rates extremely high analytically."

Miami 26. Miami Heat: Shabazz Napier, Connecticut, PG, 6-1, 175, Sr. Scout's take: "Scoring guard who proved that he can play the point guard position in the NCAA tournament. Proven winner who hits big shots."

Phoenix 27. Phoenix Suns (from Indiana): Bogdan Bogdanovic, Serbia Partizan, PG-SG, 6-6, 200. Scout's take: "Combo guard with good size for both positions. Good shooter and facilitator who has similar game to Greivis Vasquez."

Los Angeles 28. Los Angeles Clippers: P.J. Hairston, D-League Texas Legends, SG, 6-5, 229. Scout's take: "Big, physical two-guard who shoots the ball really well. Great athleticism. Character issues are the main concern."

Oklahoma City 29. Oklahoma City Thunder: Damien Inglis, France Roanne, 6-8, 240. Scout's take: "Strong defensive potential. A multiple-position defender who is ridiculously long. He's a decent athlete with good offensive game."

San Antonio 30. San Antonio Spurs: Mitch McGary, Michigan, C, 6-10, 263, So. Scout's take: "Big, physical center who is an underrated passer, shooter and rebounder. There are concerns with his back after having surgery."

draft express has one up also.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2014/

has Celtics taking Randle at #6 and LaVine at #17.

for what it's worth.

and here is one from Draftnet

http://nbadraft.net/2014mock_draft

has us taking Vonleh and Payton.

If teams take "best player available," I don't know if I see the C's getting Randle.



KJ

Lavine is not gonna last until 17, he might be the closest thing to Exum in the draft with sick athleticism and ball handling in a 6'5"-6'6" package. If we can't get a center or Exum, this kid could be worth a shot.

Having watched UCLA more than any college team this year, I don't know about Zach LaVine. I see the potential, but I thought he should have spent another year or even two in college. My concerns are that he's nowhere near physically ready for the NBA -- he's 6' 6" and 182 pounds -- and he would disappear for long stretches, both during games and across multiple games. He was an inconsistent complementary player on a good but not great college team. Cow's description -- "this kid could be worth a shot" -- is an apt one that implies both the potential reward and the risk.

Maybe he fills out a bit and turns into an NBA stud that has everyone wondering why they didn't take him higher, but he's the kind of guy that is emblematic of what a crapshoot the draft can be. Evaluating talent for the draft is absurdly difficult, especially with so many of these kids coming out early. Hindsight is so easy, but Ainge and all these GMs have one tough job ahead of them. Whoever takes LaVine needs to keep their fingers crossed.

out of the top 10-15 players I see the FIRST year potential like this:

players who will be starters from day one:

Parker
Randle

Players who be rotational players as rookies:

Embiid
Wiggins
Gordon
McDermitt
Smart

players who will have no effect as NBA rookies:
all the rest.

what say yea?

kdp,

Not that I've seen him play, but the info I've seen for Dario Saric makes me think he has a good chance to be a rotation player.

There will be a less heralded player or two who will surprise, like Michael Carter-Williams this year and Damien Lillard the year before. I have no idea who that might be this time, but there will be someone.

I'm not sure if this belongs here or if it deserves its own thread.  Let's start here.

This is a Bleacher Report article BUT it's an interview with an NBA scout from Denver, so it's not them spouting their half-baked opinions but providing a professional's perspective instead. That's ok.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2074687-how-the-denver-nuggets-analytics-guru-scouts-nba-draft-prospects


How the Denver Nuggets' Analytics Guru Scouts NBA Draft Prospects
By Adam Fromal , National NBA Featured Columnist May 26, 2014




If you aren't into numbers, you're allowing your NBA fandom to fall behind the curve.

Or, as Tommy Balcetis might think about it, you're allowing the residual between your actual knowledge and expected knowledge (based on your years watching basketball and your experiences with the sport) to grow larger and larger.

Balcetis, the Denver Nuggets manager of basketball analytics, knows his numbers. The Harvard graduate spent the 2013-14 season, his first in the front office, working behind the scenes for Denver, aiding player development, generating pregame and postgame reports for head coach Brian Shaw and—as is most relevant here—beginning the process of scouting draft prospects.

When I had a chance to speak with him on behalf of Bleacher Report, it was quite clear just how much went through this man's head. You could see the gears churning behind his eyes whenever analytics were brought up, and his passion for the game was even easier to see.

From traditional and advanced stats to camera-based data, from the necessity of the eye test to the value of analytics in injury prevention, Balcetis knows his stuff.

We'll have more from the analytics guru at a later date, but for now, let's focus on the part of the Q&A that dealt with the upcoming draft.



Bleacher Report: So one role you have is evaluating these college prospects in preparation for the draft. Without giving away any of the trade secrets, or the franchise secrets, what analytics do you use to do that?

Tommy Balcetis: With college data, the information is slightly more limited. There are some good sources out there for advanced stats and basic stats. Ken Pomeroy does a really good job evaluating some of those players, and we use him a lot.

You don't have SportVU. All you have is Synergy, and they have some analytics as well. So we use that, as well as other sources that give us basic and advanced stats. From there, with college players, stats may not always be the best gauge in how well they're going to do. It's no secret.

It's much more about upside and knowing their mental capacities. Knowing whether they're hard-working or not, and all that stuff matters more than stats, but you still need to know how well they're shooting from three. There's a bunch of information about how some players didn't really shoot well from three, and when they came to the NBA, they improved drastically because of the system.

We definitely look at stats, but with college players we look at the video a little more. And we try to get some background information on their mental preparedness.



B/R: Are there any numbers that do seem to have a strong correlation between the two levels?

TB: Rebounding. Rebounding translates really well. That's something that's almost like a hustle stat, when you think about it.

Shooting is tricky because (a) you can be the best player on your team and shoot a lot, and (b) the three-point line is obviously shorter. It's one of those things where rebounding really translates well, and it's been documented many times.




There's a reason why Kenneth [Faried] is with us. His rebounds back at Morehead State were great, and he's with us now, and he's continuing that trend. That's just one example, but it seems like it's documented at this point.



B/R: It seems like most of this is the eye test then.

TB: It is. It is eye test. It's interviews. And obviously, there are some numbers, but I would say their weight is lower than what it is in the league.



B/R: When you follow the draft, so much of what you hear is "upside," or their "ceiling" or their "potential." Is there an analytical way to evaluate that upside, or is it all based on the eye test?

TB: It's not all based on the eye test, and there are some analytical ways. We have body comp and stat comp, and other teams probably do it as well. They analyze what the players look like—weight, height, wingspan, all that kind of stuff—and they try to gauge. At least it gives you a comp in your mind, and you can evaluate from there.

There are two different schools of thought. Some scouts don't like to have comps, just because they feel every player is unique. Other scouts love comps, just because it gives you an idea of how good the player can be.

So that's probably the only way to do it numbers-wise, to have body and stat comps. That's not necessarily the ceiling, but that's at least the range the player can fall into.



B/R: Speaking of the range, do you have a ceiling comparison and a floor comparison?

TB: In our conversations, we do create a ceiling and a floor, but it's not based on stats. It's based on our knowledge.






B/R: So this draft class. Maybe a little bit too hyped, but it's gotten a lot of good reviews and been compared favorably to 2003 and other strong classes we've seen. In your opinion, how strong is this one?

TB: It's very strong. The top five are all franchise-altering players, and that's definitely big. It's a deep class. It really is. In my opinion, the top 30 are solid players who will be very beneficial to your team. And again, the top five, even the top seven, could potentially change the course of your franchise.

It's a very good draft class. We've been lucky to be in a situation where we have a good pick. Lucky is obviously an interesting word because, you know, we would've loved to have a better season at the same time. This was the draft class where we're happy we can be pretty creative with who we pick.



B/R: Now speaking as you, not the Nuggets, do you have a personal favorite in the class?

TB: No personal favorite, honestly.

I like certain things that certain players do. I think the Europeans in this draft class—some of them—can be very good. Maybe the public in the States aren't familiar with them, but guys like Clint Capela in France. Pretty raw offensively, but he's such an interesting prospect because he's so athletically gifted.

I love certain things about certain players. If I could build one perfect player, I feel like I could do that based on some of the skills of this draft class. Julius Randle has the toughness and mentality of a winner. [Jabari] Parker is just extremely talented overall. [Dante] Exum has that amazing upside.




If I had to choose one, I probably couldn't, to be quite honest with you. But I feel like there's something very elite about each and every one of them. [Nik] Stauskas' shooting, for example.

So that makes it pretty fun.



B/R: I'm going to try getting you to pick. If Adam Silver decided there was an expansion team, and you're the GM, and you're given that No. 1 pick...who are you—again, you, not the Nuggets—building around?

TB: Good question...

I love Jabari Parker. Probably him. That's my personal opinion.



B/R: What sold you on him?

TB: His approach, and the fact that there's little he can't do on the court. All that talent can go out the window if you don't have the right mentality, and I feel like he has the right mentality. He seems to be extremely well-spoken, understands the value of hard work.

He went through Duke. Love it or hate it, it's a team and organization that really cares about personalities of their players and cares about their development. My best friend went to Duke, so I know a little more about it.

I'd probably choose him.






B/R: Parker played, what, like 30 games [editor's note: 35] because Duke exited pretty early. So when the information is that limited, how do you get around it?

TB: The eye test, honestly. It's just our scouts who have been doing it for so long, them looking at the player. Each of us has a chance to give our input on a player, and if there's a consensus, we feel pretty good about our pick.

All that is us just trying to make informed mistakes, when you think about it. There are certain players in this draft who we believe can't fail. They're not going to fail. They're going to be solid players. Their floor is that they're going to be solid players.

There are others who may potentially fail, but they could potentially be really, really good. So it's almost about impact versus upside. That's why each and every single one of us gives an opinion, then we just go with the consensus.



bob



.

ESPN Chat with Chad Ford, 5/28.

Chad Ford  (1:37 PM)

Ainge went from hating the draft to loving it overnight LOL. If the Top 4 are all off the board (and by the way the Celtics are adamant that there isn't as much separation between the top 4 guys and the next 4 guys as we and others have suggested) then it's Aaron Gordon, Marcus Smart, Noah Vonleh and Julius Randle in some order. They also like Tyler Ennis and Gary Harris a lot too. Based on everything I've been able to gather all year, I'd say Gordon is probably the favorite though I know Smart has really grown on them and Ainge's son played against Vonleh in high school which gave Ainge a few extra scouting looks at him as well. But if I was going to pick one guy right now, I think it's Gordon.



bob



.

bobheckler wrote:ESPN Chat with Chad Ford, 5/28.

Chad Ford  (1:37 PM)

Ainge went from hating the draft to loving it overnight LOL. If the Top 4 are all off the board (and by the way the Celtics are adamant that there isn't as much separation between the top 4 guys and the next 4 guys as we and others have suggested) then it's Aaron Gordon, Marcus Smart, Noah Vonleh and Julius Randle in some order. They also like Tyler Ennis and Gary Harris a lot too. Based on everything I've been able to gather all year, I'd say Gordon is probably the favorite though I know Smart has really grown on them and Ainge's son played against Vonleh in high school which gave Ainge a few extra scouting looks at him as well. But if I was going to pick one guy right now, I think it's Gordon.



bob



.

That would be nice if Marcus Smart fell to the Lakers at #7...
He has tons of potential. Who knows what he will do with it.
I don't see any way the Julius Randle will be picked in the first 7 picks.
Randle would be a nice upgrade for Charlotte with the #9 pick over McRoberts who is their starting PF.

bobheckler wrote:ESPN Chat with Chad Ford, 5/28.

Chad Ford  (1:37 PM)

Ainge went from hating the draft to loving it overnight LOL. If the Top 4 are all off the board (and by the way the Celtics are adamant that there isn't as much separation between the top 4 guys and the next 4 guys as we and others have suggested) then it's Aaron Gordon, Marcus Smart, Noah Vonleh and Julius Randle in some order. They also like Tyler Ennis and Gary Harris a lot too. Based on everything I've been able to gather all year, I'd say Gordon is probably the favorite though I know Smart has really grown on them and Ainge's son played against Vonleh in high school which gave Ainge a few extra scouting looks at him as well. But if I was going to pick one guy right now, I think it's Gordon.



bob



.

I just pray we don't pick Ennis.............he'll get eaten alive on the defensive end. And he's not a great knock down shooter by any stretch. About the only good thing I can say is he is an above average passer and even his ball handling is only average at best which is not good for a PG.

beat

CSNNE has short videos (NOT just pictures, but analysis) of the players at the website, but I can't copy-and-paste them, so you have to go to them.



http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/breaking-down-nba-draft-shooters






Breaking down the NBA draft: Shooters
May 30, 2014, 4:45 pm







BOSTON — Even the most diehard Celtics fan will tell you that the team has a few - OK, quite a few - holes to fill this offseason.

Of course, Avery Bradley's impending restricted free agent status is a priority for them to address sooner rather than later.

Even if Bradley re-signs as expected, that still leaves a huge void for the team when it comes to shooters.

The only players under contract for next season whose strength is shooting are Chris Johnson and Keith Bogans.

However, their status to a large degree next year is uncertain due to their respective contracts not being fully guaranteed.

Boston will certainly scour the free-agent pool this summer looking for shot-makers, but the Celtics' best chance at adding shooters at a nominal cost appears to be through next month's NBA draft.

Here at CSNNE.com, we take a look at four of the best pure shooters in the draft and examine their availability for the Celtics who hold the No. 6 and No. 17 pick in next month's draft.



DOUG MCDERMOTT, F, CREIGHTON



McDermott's draft status has been all over the map since he played his final game for Creighton, although lately the consensus is that he'll be selected somewhere along the back-end of the lottery (top 14).

It's easy to obsess over his gaudy scoring numbers, which include 3,150 points, fifth all-time and averaging a whopping 26.7 points per game as a senior.

What truly separates McDermott from most of his shooting contemporaries is the consistency in which he has shot the 3-ball.

As a senior, he shot 44.9 percent on 3s which would be a career-type season for most prospects.

For McDermott?

He shot better than that on 3s in all but his freshman season. And as a rookie, he still connected on an impressive 40.5 percent of his 3s.

The biggest question marks surrounding McDermott have to do with his defense and ball-handling. But if you really look around the NBA, players who shoot the ball as well as he does don't spend a lot of time dribbling and are certainly not called upon to be their team's defensive stopper.

McDermott will be an adequate defender with an above-average range on his shot. Because of that, he has the potential to be in the league for a long, long time.

MCDERMOTT'S AVAILABILITY: This is where it gets kind of tricky for the Celtics who have the No. 6 and No. 17 pick.

Taking McDermott at No. 6 is a bit of a reach, especially with players who can contribute more immediately still on the board. The CSNNE.com Mock Draft has him being selected by Charlotte with the No. 9 pick.

And at No. 17, it's highly unlikely he'll last that long.

The Celtics' best shot at McDermott, if they think he's the guy for them, is to trade down a few spots and select him.



NIK STAUSKAS, G, MICHIGAN



There are few players who made more strides in their game than Stauskas from his freshman year to this past season's sophomore campaign. He showed early on the ability to shoot the ball effectively.

Making the jump from 11 points per game as a freshman to 17.5 this past season is nice, but certainly not unprecedented.

More telling was the leap he made in assists, from 1.3 to 3.3 per game. Just as important, he showcased the ability to put the ball on the floor and make plays both for himself and for his teammates.

He is a lottery-pick talent because he can shoot the ball arguably as well as McDermott. In his freshman and sophomore seasons in Ann Arbor, he shot 44 and 44.2 percent on 3s.

Still, it's Stauskas' all-around game that has teams interested in him as a shooting guard who can handle the ball in a pinch.

STAUSKAS' AVAILABILITY: Similar to McDermott, taking Stauskas at No. 6 seems highly unlikely. While most agree Stauskas will be among the first shooting guards drafted, it would not be all that surprising if he slipped down a few spots and the Celtics found themselves in position to take him or move up a spot or two from No. 17 with the intent being to select him. The most recent CSNNE.com Mock Draft has the Chicago Bulls selecting him at No. 16. Do not be shocked if Boston makes a draft-night deal akin to what they did with Kelly Olynyk last year. Boston had the No. 16 pick, but swapped that pick and a couple future second-rounders, for Dallas' No. 13 selection which was Olynyk.


RODNEY HOOD, SF, DUKE



Jabari Parker dominated the attention given to the Blue Devils this past season, but opponents who had to prepare for Duke were just as concerned about Hood.

Because Duke played a decent amount of small ball, Hood often had to play power forward - something he probably won't be called upon to do at the next level.

Teams love that he has the look of an NBA wing at 6-8 and a respectable wing span, with the touch of an elite shooting guard. Not only does he make shots, but his decision-making is also impressive.

His biggest areas of concern lie in his defense and his intensity, which tends to fluctuate more than most teams like.

While having established himself as one of the top players in the draft, he was among the more highly-regarded prospects at the pre-draft combine in Chicago earlier this month.

Hood made no secret about his desire to prove to NBA executives in Chicago that he had more fight in him than he was being given credit for having.

"A lot of guys in my position would sit out [the combine]," Hood told reporters. "I want to compete. This is the spotlight. This is where you want to be."

HOOD'S AVAILABILITY: You can add Hood to the likely list of good shooters off the board by the time the Celtics are looking to use the No. 17 pick.  In the CSNNE.com Mock Draft, Hood is projected to go No. 12 to Orlando. There's a chance that Hood could sneak into being a top-10 pick. To take him at No. 6 is much too soon.


JAMES YOUNG, SG, KENTUCKY



Young's numbers aren't quite as impressive as the others on this list, but they didn't have to find their niche with as much talent as Young played with last season for the national champion runner-up Wildcats. He still managed to score 14.3 points per game to go with 4.3 rebounds and 1.7 assists.

Young's numbers aren't quite as impressive as the others on this list, but they didn't have to find their niche with as much talent as Young played with last season for the national champion runner-up Wildcats. He still managed to score 14.3 points per game to go with 4.3 rebounds and 1.7 assists.

NBA executives believe he has the potential to be a solid two-way player because of his shot-making skills and a 7-foot wing span that allows him to play bigger defensively than one might expect.

Young is only 18 years old, but already knows that because of his size and length and leaping ability, he can shoot over the top of most defenders.

However, his youth is a double-edge sword in the eyes of many. Because he's so young, the promise of him improving is great. Still, because of that youth, it may take more time for him to develop in the NBA than other players at his position.

YOUNG'S AVAILABILITY: There's a good chance that Young will be on the board at or around the time the Celtics will be picking at No. 17. The CSNNE.com Mock Draft has Young being selected by Phoenix at No. 18. He presents the perfect dilemma facing Boston and, to a certain degree, every other team with a pick outside of the lottery. Do you take the young guy who can help you now, or do you go with the younger guy who might be great later? If Young is still on the board at No. 17, you can bet the Celtics will give some serious thought to taking him.



bob



.

I think their mock draft has Young and Stauskas reversed.

I can Young being anywhere form 10-15 and Stauskas in the 15-20 range currently.

bob



.

Gordon is a high energy, high basketball IQ guy.

Too bad the Celtics are not in a position where they could use a player like him.

He would be excellent for a team that has already rebuilt and is looking to add quality depth.

dboss

we already have Gerald Wallace

cowens/oldschool wrote:we already have Gerald Wallace

Cow,


Wallace is going to be 32 in July. He's coming off of knee surgery. I don't see getting a young, athletic replacement is a bad thing.

My concern with Gordon is that he's a 3/4 and what we could really use is a 2/3 like Wallace.


bob


.

bob if it was up to me I'd rather have Smart and TJ Warren or Nustic over Gordon.

Trade #6, Danny.

Sam